polarbuddha101 wrote:Sure, Crowley talks about buddhism. But aren't Crowley's thoughts and his philosophy just another heap of words and concepts to throw on top of the Buddha's teaching thereby obscuring one's ability to just look at them at face value or if face value is not possible to look at them through one less filter? I mean, would you really use Crowley as an even somewhat reliable guide to understanding what the Buddha taught?

Would you prefer I use the heap of words you just used in this post or do you think your ideas about Buddhism come with less layers of ignorance than Crowley's? What specific objections do you have to using Crowley as a reliable guide to Buddhism? Or, are you assuming beforehand , based on hearsay, that he couldn't possibly be reliable?

Crowley, like the Buddha, insisted that the only ultimately reliable guide to either of their teachings was yourself through your own experience.

Have you gone beyond merely glancing at any of the citations I've provided--have you even done that?

I was referring to the heap of other stuff that Crowley writes about. Things like thelema and magick and egyptian gods etc. Suffice it to say I think the man's mind was all over the place which is why he lived such an interesting and haphazard life. If I were to describe him in two words, "mostly harmless."

BlackBird wrote:I would call into question the skillfulness of your approach to this Danielion. I'm not sure whether you follow the Buddha's teachings or primarily just Crowley's, but The Buddha at least - I don't think he would have spoken favourably about some of this talk.

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."

Who are you to judge me? Can you read my mind or intentions? How do you know I haven't been speaking with affection and good-will for the benefit of others? I know my own heart and assure you that I have. It is not my problem that your and others biases make them misinterpret what I'm doing as otherwise. I'm not responsible for your perceptions, so don't confuse your imaginations of my acts with my actual acts.

BlackBird wrote:I would call into question the skillfulness of your approach to this Danielion. I'm not sure whether you follow the Buddha's teachings or primarily just Crowley's, but The Buddha at least - I don't think he would have spoken favourably about some of this talk.

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."

Who are you to judge me? Can you read my mind or intentions? How do you know I haven't been speaking with affection and good-will for the benefit of others? I know my own heart and assure you that I have. It is not my problem that your and others biases make them misinterpret what I'm doing as otherwise. I'm not responsible for your perceptions, so don't confuse your imaginations of my acts with my actual acts.

You can play that game all you like, but frankly your posts, including the one I am quoting, give off a vibe that most would associate with anger and frustration. While I can't speak for everyone, I think that your actual emotional situation is quite irrelevant, here on the internet what is important is the way you come across and you don't come across affectionate in the least, quite the opposite.

I was merely suggesting that you consider your approach to this, and perhaps if you wish to be taken seriously, and to convince people of your arguments, you might like to reconsider your mode of expression.

with mettaJack

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Crowley considered Buddhism to be part of what he called the "Black tradition." And in contrasting it to his preferred "White tradition," it seems that he considered Buddhism to be an insufficient or deficient path of liberation.

With his preferred "White tradition" requiring the initiate to transform the Buddha's first noble truth into "everything is joy," it seems clear that Crowley never accepted the four noble truths of the Buddhadhamma.

Even if Crowley did attain some sort of temporary cessation state, because he never actually engaged the noble eightfold path, any such attainment would at best be merely a non-percipient attainment (asaññasamāpatti) which could lead to rebirth as a mindless god.

Ñāṇa wrote:Crowley considered Buddhism to be part of what he called the "Black tradition." And in contrasting it to his preferred "White tradition," it seems that he considered Buddhism to be an insufficient or deficient path of liberation.

With his preferred "White tradition" requiring the initiate to transform the Buddha's first noble truth into "everything is joy," it seems clear that Crowley never accepted the four noble truths of the Buddhadhamma.

(If I may venture to add to that) it sounds as though he did not actually grasp the four noble truths properly at all, and that his wrong grasp was why he could not accept them. If I thought the Buddha had taught 'everything is suffering' I would be put off also. But as I understand it, the Buddha did not make such a statement, rather he said 'there is suffering' (ie, in the sense of, 'it happens' rather than 'everything is gloomy and miserable'). To simply first draw suffering to our attention he says 'there is this noble truth of dukkha', a statement that even a two year old child could comprehend, because everyone experiences some dis-ease sometimes; he described the suffering we beings experience, it's cause, the ending of it, and the way to achieve this. What's more, the Path as it is involves experiencing joy and happiness, as layers of delusion are gradually sloughed away. No need to change or alter it for the sake of that! As for his jhanic attainments, I doubt they would have been samma samadhi, but rather, miccha samadhi (which can still lead to the Brahma realms, but what after then...?)

I'm not putting down Crowley or his knowledge of Magick etc though. My comment is specific to his take on the Dhamma.

Correct me if I'm mistaken in anything here

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

danieLion wrote:What specific objections do you have to using Crowley as a reliable guide to Buddhism? Or, are you assuming beforehand , based on hearsay, that he couldn't possibly be reliable?

Crowley was a drug user and advocate of intoxication.

He was a champion of sex magick and tantra, as well as a proponent of general sexual and sensual indulgence and an abuser of women.

His belief in "True Will" is diametrically opposed to Buddhist thought.

He mixed Buddhism with neoshamanistic occultism and ceremonial magick and removed integral parts of the Buddha's philosophy in order to accommodate them.

His life and behavior did not show any particular mark of an enlightened mind, i.e. dispassion, restraint, reverence, and compassion.

Thelema is inherently theistic, self-based, and at odds with Buddhist cosmology and soteriology.

I've read essentially all of his work, and definitely all of his material on Buddhism - I was, and still am, profoundly unimpressed. Crowley was a̶n̶ ̶o̶b̶n̶o̶x̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶c̶k̶ someone who haphazardly pillaged from Buddhism a few interesting concepts and practices with absolutely zero scholarly rigor or attention to historical/philosophical context. He's about as reliable a guide to Buddhism as David Icke is to herpetology.

Gain and loss, status and disgrace, censure and praise, pleasure and pain:these conditions among human beings are inconstant,impermanent, subject to change.

I think you're generally right. However, he, at times thought of Buddhism as part of the Yellow Path (I posted about this earlier in this thread--the reference was to three chapters in Magick Without Tears). Furthermore, he qualified his views on the black, white and yellow paths in two ways: (1) they failed to express anything spiritually ultimate as linguistic conventions (the same problem exists for any relgion, including Buddhism--the Buddha ackowledges this repeatedly--, where ineffable experiences are impossible to put into words); and (2) all three paths themselves were inseperable at some point and that crucial and pivotal aspect was the practitioner's intention. For Buddhists this should make sense because even temporary releases from dukkha produce JOY; and JOY (cf. the seven factors) and it's family members, piti, sukkha, etc..., are part of The Path.

I'm not sure what you mean by "temporary cessation state." They were not permanent for the Buddha or subsequent arahants; otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to teach.

As far as whether or not Crowley actually engaged The Path and what he actually attained or didn't, neither of us are (or anyone for that matter) qualified to judge (and as far as his "rebirth" is concerned--we best not start pulling on that string again). It's a matter of faith. You can either beleive him or not. That's a personal choice. But, as he said in Book 4, "Don't believe me. Find out for yourself" (I'm paraphrasing). This is the same attitude the Buddha took in MN 47, Vimamsaka Sutta.

Speaking of the Majjhima Nikaya, in MN 56, Upali Sutta we find a distinction being made between bad magicians and good magicians and the Buddha being aligned with good magicians--to which he does not protest. Furthermore, the sutta descriptions of supernormal powers, psychic powers, knowledge of rebirth, etc... are acknowledged in most modern Magickal systems as valid, and utilized as (sub-)goals of practice in several of them.

manas,

I've addressed your comments above except I would add that I agree that the Buddha never taught that life is suffering but rather that there is much suffering in life (I follow Thanissaro (et al) here--see his Refuge). I think Crowley's interpretation of dukkha is in line with this, which you can find our for yourself if you investigate the ciatations I've provided.

danieLion wrote:What specific objections do you have to using Crowley as a reliable guide to Buddhism? Or, are you assuming beforehand , based on hearsay, that he couldn't possibly be reliable?

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Crowley was a drug user and advocate of intoxication.

Many Buddhist teachers have struggled with drugs. Crowley's heroine and cocaine addictions started as a medical treatment for his asthma. They were widely prescribed for such at the time. He was not proud of his addiction and worked hard to get clean, which he did. He spent most of his life not addicted and was a pioneer of addiction recovery.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:He was a champion of sex magick and tantra, as well as a proponent of general sexual and sensual indulgence and an abuser of women.

He often doubted the efficacy of sex magick as he tought it interfered with meditation. See the appropriate passages in the book Perdurabo. He was not a proponent of any kind of indulgence. Magick is to demanding for that. He was a proponent of exploring the way we internalize taboos to imprison ourselves. You'll have to be more specific about his treatment of women. Did you ever witness, even once, how he behaved around any women?

LonesomeYogurt wrote:He mixed Buddhism with neoshamanistic occultism and ceremonial magick and removed integral parts of the Buddha's philosophy in order to accommodate them.

We all mix Buddhism with our cultural influences and beliefs (I don't know what you mean by "neoshamanistic occultism"). Do you think the way you practice Buddhism as a modern person is pristine?

LonesomeYogurt wrote:His life and behavior did not show any particular mark of an enlightened mind, i.e. dispassion, restraint, reverence, and compassion.

How would you know? How much of his life and behavior did you personally witness?

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Thelema is inherently theistic,

Do you absolutely believe Buddhism and theism are incompatible?

LonesomeYogurt wrote:...self-based...

That depends on what you mean by "self" and it is odds with his repeated "utter destruction of the ego" language.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:...and at odds with Buddhist cosmology and soteriology.

Cosmologically, Buddhism shares much in common with many forms of magic/Magick; soteriologically, see my comments to Nana and manas above.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:I've read essentially all of his work,

That's quite the feat. He wrote a lot.

LonesomeYogurt wrote: and definitely all of his material on Buddhism

Okay? Which ones do yout think they are? List them.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:I was, and still am, profoundly unimpressed. Crowley was a̶n̶ ̶o̶b̶n̶o̶x̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶c̶k̶ someone who haphazardly pillaged from Buddhism a few interesting concepts and practices with absolutely zero scholarly rigor or attention to historical/philosophical context. He's about as reliable a guide to Buddhism as David Icke is to herpetology.

A systematic Magician is anything but haphazard, and does not pillage. What do you think "scholarly rigor" is and what evidence do you have that he was even a little dismissive of history or philosophy? If you have read most of his works, you wouldn't be saying such things, especially if you've read all of his works about Buddhism. Maybe you should go back and read them again. You've either overlooked some essentials or tainted them with pre-judgments.

danieLion wrote:Many Buddhist teachers have struggled with drugs. Crowley's heroine and cocaine addictions started as a medical treatment for his asthma. They were widely prescribed for such at the time. He was not proud of his addiction and worked hard to get clean, which he did. He spent most of his life not addicted and was a pioneer of addiction recovery.

I'm not referring to his addictions but instead his repeated use of hashish, mescaline, etc. for spiritual and recreational purposes.

He often doubted the efficacy of sex magick as he tought it interfered with meditation. See the appropriate passages in the book Perdurabo. He was not a proponent of any kind of indulgence. Magick is to demanding for that. He was a proponent of exploring the way we internalize taboos to imprison ourselves. You'll have to be more specific about his treatment of women. Did you ever witness, even once, how he behaved around any women?

It don't care if he "often doubted" sex magick, considering he was not only practicing it himself but encouraging it in his followers, especially at the Abbey of Thelema - a place, I might add, that was almost completely devoted to indulgence in the name of discovering the "Higher Will."

Maybe. Diametrically is a strong word though.

Certainly, and it is not.

We all mix Buddhism with our cultural influences and beliefs (I don't know what you mean by "neoshamanistic occultism"). Do you think the way you practice Buddhism as a modern person is pristine?

I think the way I practice holds the Buddha's teachings as more important than and authoritative over the teachings of non-Buddhist occultists.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:How would you know? How much of his life and behavior did you personally witness?

I am referring to actions that are either (proudly) admitted to by Crowley himself or historically undeniable.

Do you absolutely believe Buddhism and theism are incompatible?

Reliance on the power of outside beings for spiritual development is not Buddhism.

That depends on what you mean by "self" and it is odds with his repeated "utter destruction of the ego" language.

Ego is one type of self; the belief in "True Will" or an ultimate self is equally non-Buddhist.

Cosmologically, Buddhism shares much in common with many forms of magic/Magick; soteriologically, see my comments to Nana and manas above.

Not when it comes to the essentially theistic vs. atheistic approach of each.

That's quite the feat. He wrote a lot.

As I've said in other threads, I was very into magick for a while as a younger person. I doubt I have read everything but I am certainly no stranger to his thought.

Okay? Which ones do yout think they are? List them.

His Jataka tale stuff, Essay in Ontology, his commentary on Blavatsky, Science and Buddhism, Aleister Crowley, The Golden Dawn and Buddhism by Yorke, some other stuff hidden in his early work.

A systematic Magician is anything but haphazard, and does not pillage.

Then how would you explain his awkward synthesis of Buddhist philosophy with explicitly anti-Buddhist doctrine, especially considering their inherent contradictions are either ignored or, one suspects, intentionally downplayed?

What do you think "scholarly rigor" is and what evidence do you have that he was even a little dismissive of history or philosophy? If you have read most of his works, you wouldn't be saying such things, especially if you've read all of his works about Buddhism.

The evidence is, again, his incredibly poorly thought-out co-opting of Buddhist concepts and terms for use in his larger, explicitly anti-Buddhist system.

Maybe you should go back and read them again. You've either overlooked some essentials or tainted them with pre-judgments.

Thanks, but I'll stick with the Pali Canon.

Gain and loss, status and disgrace, censure and praise, pleasure and pain:these conditions among human beings are inconstant,impermanent, subject to change.

danieLion wrote:Did you ever witness, even once, how he behaved around any women?

One does not need to be a witness to events. There are such things are reliable accounts, whether or not such things exist I personally do not know. The wikipedia article seems to suggest he was abusive towards his 'scarlet women' "battering them" outside the context of his "sadomachistic sex rituals" but I am not one to judge having not done my research.

danieLion wrote:We all mix Buddhism with our cultural influences and beliefs (I don't know what you mean by "neoshamanistic occultism"). Do you think the way you practice Buddhism as a modern person is pristine?

I don't mix the Buddha's teachings with any influence of mine or belief. In fact I actively attempt not to, because my aim is to see my world through The Buddha's lens, not The Buddha's teachings through my cultural lens. To defend the fact that Crowley plucked certain aspects of Dhamma that he liked out from the whole, removing them from their context, by saying we all do it is quite inadmissible. We don't all do that. Very few of us do that to such an extent, and those that do cannot strictly claim to be following the Buddha at all.

danieLion wrote:How would you know? How much of his life and behavior did you personally witness?

I'm not speaking for LonesomeYogurt, but again - Do you not believe that biographies and historical accounts have any authority? Generally we take historical accounts (as long as their sources are good) as having some merit, in giving us an insight into people's lives. It's fair enough to call such things into question, in so far as one has the ability to pass judgement upon a man, but to disregard them altogether seems to be a wholly illogical baby-out-with-the-bathwater scenario.

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

danieLion wrote:Many Buddhist teachers have struggled with drugs. Crowley's heroine and cocaine addictions started as a medical treatment for his asthma. They were widely prescribed for such at the time. He was not proud of his addiction and worked hard to get clean, which he did. He spent most of his life not addicted and was a pioneer of addiction recovery.

I'm not referring to his addictions but instead his repeated use of hashish, mescaline, etc. for spiritual and recreational purposes.

He often doubted the efficacy of sex magick as he tought it interfered with meditation. See the appropriate passages in the book Perdurabo. He was not a proponent of any kind of indulgence. Magick is to demanding for that. He was a proponent of exploring the way we internalize taboos to imprison ourselves. You'll have to be more specific about his treatment of women. Did you ever witness, even once, how he behaved around any women?

It don't care if he "often doubted" sex magick, considering he was not only practicing it himself but encouraging it in his followers, especially at the Abbey of Thelema - a place, I might add, that was almost completely devoted to indulgence in the name of discovering the "Higher Will."

Maybe. Diametrically is a strong word though.

Certainly, and it is not.

We all mix Buddhism with our cultural influences and beliefs (I don't know what you mean by "neoshamanistic occultism"). Do you think the way you practice Buddhism as a modern person is pristine?

I think the way I practice holds the Buddha's teachings as more important than and authoritative over the teachings of non-Buddhist occultists.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:How would you know? How much of his life and behavior did you personally witness?

I am referring to actions that are either (proudly) admitted to by Crowley himself or historically undeniable.

Do you absolutely believe Buddhism and theism are incompatible?

Reliance on the power of outside beings for spiritual development is not Buddhism.

That depends on what you mean by "self" and it is odds with his repeated "utter destruction of the ego" language.

Ego is one type of self; the belief in "True Will" or an ultimate self is equally non-Buddhist.

Cosmologically, Buddhism shares much in common with many forms of magic/Magick; soteriologically, see my comments to Nana and manas above.

Not when it comes to the essentially theistic vs. atheistic approach of each.

That's quite the feat. He wrote a lot.

As I've said in other threads, I was very into magick for a while as a younger person. I doubt I have read everything but I am certainly no stranger to his thought.

Okay? Which ones do yout think they are? List them.

His Jataka tale stuff, Essay in Ontology, his commentary on Blavatsky, Science and Buddhism, Aleister Crowley, The Golden Dawn and Buddhism by Yorke, some other stuff hidden in his early work.

A systematic Magician is anything but haphazard, and does not pillage.

Then how would you explain his awkward synthesis of Buddhist philosophy with explicitly anti-Buddhist doctrine, especially considering their inherent contradictions are either ignored or, one suspects, intentionally downplayed?

What do you think "scholarly rigor" is and what evidence do you have that he was even a little dismissive of history or philosophy? If you have read most of his works, you wouldn't be saying such things, especially if you've read all of his works about Buddhism.

The evidence is, again, his incredibly poorly thought-out co-opting of Buddhist concepts and terms for use in his larger, explicitly anti-Buddhist system.

If you say so, LY. Like I said, I'm not a Crowley apologist.

danieLion wrote:Maybe you should go back and read them again. You've either overlooked some essentials or tainted them with pre-judgments.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Thanks, but I'll stick with the Pali Canon.

Exclusively? You're never going to read anything else?

From the dogmatic approach you take to the positions you dig into there's a lot of certainty in my mind that you'll literally stick with it, in a very clingy way: it's clear your contact with it has produced intense feeling for it, which in turn has led to your obviously deep craving for it. Letting go of this would very likely be devastating to your sense of self, identity, views, practices and habits.

You seem to have an extraordinary amount of faith in the Pali "Canon."

In the book Getting To Yes, we find that a basic tenet of negotiation is to insist on objective criteria.

If you've not read Perdurabo, it is pointless for me to discuss Crowley with you.

It qualifies as the most objective account of Crowley's life to date. In it you will find not only many of his misbehaviors illustrated but also much of the misunderstandings people have about him exposed as baseless.

I think the point, which I hope we would agree on, is that none of the millions of teachers of something-or-other that one could possible read/listen to/study with are necessary in order to understand the Buddha's message.

Clearly most of us have experience in other areas, such as philosophy, psychology, various other spiritual/religious paths, various arts and science disciplines, etc, etc. And many of us think we get some useful perspective from knowing about those things.

Most of us have experience with the writings or teachings of a number of ancient and modern Buddhist teachers. And many of us think that those were crucial to our understanding of the Buddha-Dhamma.

tiltbillings wrote:One thing you don't want to have in a teacher is: "I have it all figured out, I understand what the Buddha truly meant, those guys over there? They don't have a clue." That is a good sign to look elsewhere.

And the same goes for any claims along the lines of: "If you don't think that the interpretations of such-and-such are important then you don't have a clue." Presumably you're not saying that about Crowley, but, to me, sometimes your posts could be interpreted that way.

By all means explain what you find interesting about Crowley's opinions on Dhamma. But respect that others may not agree, for a variety of reasons.

For the uninitiated, is there a good Crowley documentary or resource you'd particularly recommend? I think I have a general sense of what Crowley was trying to do.. a sort of creative approach to ritual in order to liberate, but I'm not down with the details.

Ok, *phew* My vocabulary, of necessity, continues to be expanded by visiting this site of erudite savants.

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

LonesomeYogurt wrote:his repeated use of hashish, mescaline, etc. for spiritual and recreational purposes.

relevance? (5th precept not relevant)

the Abbey of Thelema - a place, I might add, that was almost completely devoted to indulgence in the name of discovering the "Higher Will."

hearsay...document

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Certainly, and it is not.

mere opinion...document

LonesomeYogurt wrote:I think the way I practice holds the Buddha's teachings as more important than and authoritative over the teachings of non-Buddhist occultists.

relevance?

LonesomeYogurt wrote:I am referring to actions that are either (proudly) admitted to by Crowley himself or historically undeniable

document

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Reliance on the power of outside beings for spiritual development is not Buddhism.

so you rely on inside beings, a.k.a. yourself...are you teacherless?

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Ego is one type of self; the belief in "True Will" or an ultimate self is equally non-Buddhist.

mere opinion/hearsay; document

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Not when it comes to the essentially theistic vs. atheistic approach of each

mere opinion/hearsay; document

LonesomeYogurt wrote:As I've said in other threads, I was very into magick for a while as a younger person. I doubt I have read everything but I am certainly no stranger to his thought.

relevance?

LonesomeYogurt wrote:His Jataka tale stuff, Essay in Ontology, his commentary on Blavatsky, Science and Buddhism, Aleister Crowley, The Golden Dawn and Buddhism by Yorke, some other stuff hidden in his early work.

stuff? you've accused AC of not being shcolarly rigorous; you are now being held to the same standard; cite and document; demonstrate your knowledge of all the available information is proficient; otherwise its mere opinion/hearsay

LonesomeYogurt wrote:Then how would you explain his awkward synthesis of Buddhist philosophy with explicitly anti-Buddhist doctrine, especially considering their inherent contradictions are either ignored or, one suspects, intentionally downplayed? The evidence is, again, his incredibly poorly thought-out co-opting of Buddhist concepts and terms for use in his larger, explicitly anti-Buddhist system.

Viscid wrote:For the uninitiated, is there a good Crowley documentary or resource you'd particularly recommend? I think I have a general sense of what Crowley was trying to do.. a sort of creative approach to ritual in order to liberate, but I'm not down with the details.